Wakilii

Uganda v Okullo Charles and Another (Criminal Session Case No. 364 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1313 · 2025 A1 Convicted; A2 Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial on indictment for murder and arson
Decision
A1 convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to 32 years and 6 months' imprisonment (after deduction of remand period). A2 acquitted and discharged.

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held: A1 (Okullo Charles) was convicted of murder and arson. The court found that sniffer dog evidence, corroborated by evidence of prior death threats made by A1 against the deceased, proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 set fire to the deceased's houses, causing his death. The scene was well preserved, the dog handler and dog were experienced, and the dog tracked the scent directly to A1's home. A1's alibi was disbelieved as coached and inconsistent with the timeline. A2 (Omiat Patrick) was acquitted on both counts as no evidence linked him to the commission of the offences.

Outcome

A1 convicted of murder and arson and sentenced to 32 years and 6 months' imprisonment (after deduction of remand period). A2 acquitted and discharged.

Facts

On 4 January 2022, three grass-thatched houses belonging to Ejemai Nobert were set on fire at Ongoratok village, Soroti District. The deceased was burnt to death inside one of the houses. A1 (Okullo Charles) and the deceased had a history of conflict arising from a land dispute. A1 had sold land to PW3 but refused to provide a sale agreement. The deceased, as clan chairperson, convened a meeting to resolve the matter. During the meeting, A1 arrived, slapped the deceased, threatened attendees with a panga, and was arrested but later released after reconciliation. Despite reconciliation, A1 continued to issue death threats against the deceased. On the night of the incident, a sniffer dog tracked the scent from the crime scene directly to A1's home. A1 denied involvement and claimed he was at his shop in Soroti City. A2 (Omiat Patrick), A1's son, claimed he was in Serere District at the time.

Issues

  1. Whether the death of Ejemai Nobert occurred.
  2. Whether the death was caused by an unlawful act.
  3. Whether the unlawful act was actuated by malice aforethought.
  4. Whether it was the accused persons who caused the unlawful death.
  5. Whether there was setting of fire to a dwelling house.
  6. Whether the fire was unlawfully and intentionally set.
  7. Whether the accused persons participated in setting the fire.

Orders

  • A1 (Okullo Charles) found guilty of murder contrary to sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • A1 (Okullo Charles) found guilty of arson contrary to section 304(a) of the Penal Code Act and convicted.
  • A2 (Omiat Patrick) found not guilty on both counts and acquitted.
  • A2 (Omiat Patrick) set free forthwith.
  • A1 sentenced to 35 years' imprisonment on Count I (murder).
  • A1 sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment on Count II (arson).
  • Sentences to run concurrently.
  • Period of 2 years and 6 months spent on remand deducted from sentence.
  • A1 to serve 32 years and 6 months from date of conviction.
  • Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Sniffer Dog Evidence — Admissibility and Weight — Requirements for Reliability
Sniffer dog evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence which, if well-handled and analysed, has a reasonably high degree of accuracy, but courts must treat it with caution. For such evidence to be admissible and reliable, the prosecution must establish: (1) the experience and qualifications of the dog handler; (2) the reputation, skill and training of the tracker dog; (3) preservation of the scene of crime; (4) that the trail has not become stale; and (5) the circumstances relating to the actual trailing.
Evidence — Prior Threats — Admissibility and Probative Value in Murder Cases
Evidence of prior threats or an announced intention to kill is always admissible against a person accused of murder. Its probative value varies and depends on the manner in which the threat was uttered (whether bitterly, impulsively, in sudden anger, or jokingly), the reason for the threat, and the length of time between the threat and the killing. Recent threats made bitterly are capable of disclosing intent and linking the accused to the murder, and can corroborate other evidence such as sniffer dog evidence.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Murder — Proof of Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
Malice aforethought is a mental element that is difficult to prove by direct evidence and is usually proved through circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from surrounding circumstances such as the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the part of the body injured, and the conduct of the accused before, during and after the act. Where a person sets fire to a dwelling house causing the death of the occupant, and the body is burnt beyond recognition, malice aforethought may be inferred in the absence of evidence of natural or accidental causes.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Defence of Alibi — Assessment and Rejection
An alibi defence may be disbelieved and rejected where it appears to be prepared and coached, and where the evidence is internally inconsistent or contradicted by undisputed prosecution evidence. Where an accused and his witnesses give evidence of events on a particular date that is demonstrably inconsistent with the known timeline of police activity, the alibi may be found untrue.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Burden and Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In criminal cases, the burden of proving each and every ingredient of an offence is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. An accused person is convicted on the strength of the prosecution case and not because of weaknesses in his defence. Each essential ingredient must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which standard is satisfied once any evidence suggesting innocence, at its best, only creates a fanciful possibility but not any probability that the accused is innocent.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (16)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Ssekitoleko v Uganda (1967) EA 531
  • Miller v Minister for Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Kimweri v Republic (1968) EA 42
  • R v Gusambuzi s/o Wesonga (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • Wilson Kyakurugaha v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2014)
  • Uganda v Muheirwe and Another (HCT-05-CR-CN-0011 of 2012)
  • Niwamanya v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2015)
  • Waihi & Another v Uganda (1968) EA 278
  • Aharikundira Yustina v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
  • Karisa Moses v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2016)
  • Kaddu Kavulu Lawrence v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2015)
  • Ndyomugyenyi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2016)
  • Attorney General v Suzan Kigula and 417 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2006)
  • Adupa Dickens v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2017)
  • Ssemanda Christopher & Another v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Okullo Charles and Another (Criminal Session Case No. 364 of 2022) [2025] UGHC 1313 (14 November 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.